In response, SMUD sought a writ of mandamus from this court to compel the trial court to lift the stay and allow for entry of the judgment for the period of 1992-2003. In re Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist., 395 F. App'x 684, 685 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Because the stay would not last for a protracted or indefinite amount of time, this court denied SMUD's mandamus petition, finding that the Court of Federal Claims did not abuse its discretion.

See Cherokee Nation of Okla., 124 F.3d at 1414 (vacating an "indefinite" stay that was to remain "pending the prosecution of quiet title actions in a separate forum"); CTI-Container Leasing Corp. v. Uiterwyk Corp., 685 F.2d 1284, 1288 (11th Cir. 1982) (noting that a district court's stay was for an indefinite period when it was issued pending the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal's determination as to its jurisdiction over the defendant's third-party claims); Hines v. D'Artois, 531 F.2d 726, 731-32 (5th Cir. 1976) (assessing the propriety of an "indefinite" stay that would have remained in effect for a period of time between eighteen months and five years pending the initiation and subsequent outcome of administrative proceedings); cf. In Re Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist., 395 F. App'x 684, 688 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding that a stay was not "indefinite" when it was issued pending a single action that the plaintiff could control because the plaintiff was directly involved). Notably, Judges Futey and Bush found that the similar stays requested by the plaintiffs in their cases are stays of indefinite duration.

But, that discretion is not without limits. In re Sacramento Mun. Utility Dist., 395 F. App'x. 684, 687 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A court must “weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”

But that discretion is not without limits. In re Sacramento Mun. Utility Dist., 395 Fed. App'x 684, 687 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A court must “weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”

But, that discretion is not without limits. In re Sacramento Mun. Utility Dist., 395 Fed. App'x. 684, 687 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A court must “weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”

But, that discretion is not without limits. In re Sacramento Mun. Utility Dist., 395 Fed. App'x. 684, 687 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A court must "weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance."

But that discretion is not without limits. In re Sacramento Mun. Utility Dist., 395 Fed. App'x 684, 687 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A court must "weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance."

A party seeking a stay must demonstrate a pressing need for one, Landis, 299 U.S. at 255, and that the need for a stay outweighs any possible harm to the nonmovant. Mike's Train House v. Broadway Ltd., Civ. JKB-09-2657, 2011 WL 836673, at *1 (D. Md. Mar. 3, 2011); see also In re Sacramento Mun. Utility Dist., 395 F. App'x 684, 687-88 (Fed. Cir. 2010). With this standard in mind, the Court turns to the two grounds on which Citrix seeks a stay.

But, that discretion is not without limits. In re Sacramento Mun. Utility Dist., 395 Fed. App'x. 684, 687 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A court must "weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance."

Plaintiff is entitled to a stay if he demonstrates that a pressing need exists, id. at 255, and "that that need outweighs any possible harm to the interests of the non-moving party." Mike's Train House, Inc. v. Broadway Ltd. Imports, LLC, No. JKB-09-2657, 2011 WL 836673, at *1 (D.Md. Mar. 3, 2011) (citing In re Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist., 395 F.App'x 684, 687-88 (Fed.Cir. 2010)). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a pressing need for a stay.